FA: Blackbird bits
Vass
Andy Bonwick
<write2mark@_BRA_hotmail.com> wrote:
>Item number: 8037136135
>Sports luggage rack
>
>Item number: 8037135413
>Headlight lens cover
You might have noticed someone copping a lot of flak for promoting his
BMW accessories for sale on E-Bay. Did you think it was fair
criticism or did you think he was being picked for no good reason?
Ok, he was a persistent offender and the cunt would have posted
separately for each item he was flogging but I don't see any good
reason why you shouldn't get some of the same if this continues.
Vass
"Andy Bonwick" <nos...@bonwick.me.uk> wrote in message
news:khauu1dcqrjoak0j7...@4ax.com...
sticks n stones
--
Vass
Bear
Anyone care to post the URL for reporting spamming cunts to eBay?
--
Bear
BMW 740iL - Stately Progress For The Mature Gentleman
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
I feel the urge to post a message on Ebay asking if this is the same
R1 he wrecked doing a trackday. Who gives a flying fuck if he's never
been near a race track with his bike, the seed of doubt will be there
for potential purchasers.
Sticks n stones and no fucking sale sounds good to me.
Wicked Uncle Nigel
<nos...@bonwick.me.uk> typed
It's easier to create a couple of disposable accounts and bid his crap
up to a silly price.
Apparently.
--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - There are few things in life more sinister than a
public toilet with the lid closed.
WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (On its hols) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Yamaha GTS1000
Bear
Except that the seller doesn't have to display questions, but otherwise
not a bad idea.
I just want to find that URL so I can report the cunt. I let the first
one go, but frankly, fuck the little wankstain. I know there's a
specific one, but I can't find it on eBay Help section.
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:33:32 +0000, Andy Bonwick said ...
>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:22:53 -0000, Bear <bastard...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Anyone care to post the URL for reporting spamming cunts to eBay?
>>
>> I feel the urge to post a message on Ebay asking if this is the same
>> R1 he wrecked doing a trackday. Who gives a flying fuck if he's never
>> been near a race track with his bike, the seed of doubt will be there
>> for potential purchasers.
>>
>> Sticks n stones and no fucking sale sounds good to me.
>
>Except that the seller doesn't have to display questions, but otherwise
>not a bad idea.
>
That's fucked it then. Not that I can really work up the enthusiasm
for anything today.
JackH
> Sticks n stones and no fucking sale sounds good to me.
I take it it's raining where you are as well today, Andy, and you're stuck
inside... apparently a bit frustrated and bored.
Unless I'm missing something very profound, it would appear all Vass is
doing is attempting to shift on his bike and a few bits of bike related tat
he has kicking about, on ebay... which funnily enough, someone in here might
just be tempted to buy, what with this being a bike group an' all.
I mean it's more on UKRM topic say, than say pointing people in the
direction of the ad for your car on autotrader, don't you think?
And less spam like, than having the link to the ebay auction for your bike,
each and every time you post whilst it's running, perhaps?
Looking at Vass' ebay history, he's certainly no trader, and he's most
definitely not spammed the group to death, either.
HTH... you miserable old cunt.
--
JackH
Lozzo
> Unless I'm missing something very profound, it would appear all Vass is
> doing is attempting to shift on his bike and a few bits of bike related tat
> he has kicking about, on ebay... which funnily enough, someone in here might
> just be tempted to buy, what with this being a bike group an' all.
I agree. No-one's taken me to task for sticking a "for sale" post up for
my GPZ500. I don't see any difference between that and putting an eBay
url concerning a motorcycle in a post here.
--
Lozzo
GSX-R1000 K1
GSF600(S)W
GPZ500S E1 (FS: 350 quid and it's yours)
Bear
> JackH said...
>
> > Unless I'm missing something very profound, it would appear all Vass is
> > doing is attempting to shift on his bike and a few bits of bike related tat
> > he has kicking about, on ebay... which funnily enough, someone in here might
> > just be tempted to buy, what with this being a bike group an' all.
>
> I agree. No-one's taken me to task for sticking a "for sale" post up for
> my GPZ500. I don't see any difference between that and putting an eBay
> url concerning a motorcycle in a post here.
Direct "for sale" is fine. Spamming your eBay auctions isn't.
Andy Bonwick
<jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
snip>
>HTH... you miserable old cunt.
All I pointed out was that there was uproar in here a couple of weeks
ago after someone else posted more than once directing towards ebay
auctions and asked what his views were on it.
I don't care about people posting shit about their stuff for sale if
they do it in one post with all the numbers in one go. Not difficult
to do as far as I can see.
It didn't help though because I'm coughing my lungs out of my gob
every few minutes so someone has to take the stick.
Bear
Ah, you've got that too eh?
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
>JackH said...
>
>> Unless I'm missing something very profound, it would appear all Vass is
>> doing is attempting to shift on his bike and a few bits of bike related tat
>> he has kicking about, on ebay... which funnily enough, someone in here might
>> just be tempted to buy, what with this being a bike group an' all.
>
>I agree. No-one's taken me to task for sticking a "for sale" post up for
>my GPZ500. I don't see any difference between that and putting an eBay
>url concerning a motorcycle in a post here.
Go and read exactly what I said originally. I wouldn't call that
taking him to task.
Actually I'll paste it here to make life easier for you.
muddy
Andy Bonwick <nos...@bonwick.me.uk> wrote:
> It didn't help though because I'm coughing my lungs out of my gob
> every few minutes so someone has to take the stick.
Bugger, I've just got over that stage and now only have to put of with a
dripping nose.
GWS, etc.
--
Mike
DL1000 (WarthogII) UKRMMA#22
Skype: mikebothe
wessie
I disagree
http://www.ukrm.net/faq/The_Newsgroup.html
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.motorcycles.html
"Commercial advertising is forbidden
Adverts are allowed but only from individuals selling privately"
I have no objection to an individual posting a link to a Biketrader ad and
I take the same view about a motorcycle related Ebay auction.
Personally, if I was selling something, I would offer it for sale to UKRM
as I'd prefer someone I had some sort of affinity with to benefit. However,
if the item remained unsold then I would have no worries about adding a
supplementary post to say the item was now on Ebay.
--
wessie at tesco dot net
BMW R1150GS
Champ
wrote:
No? I spammed my ebay auction here recently, and that wasn't even for
bike related stuff, it was for guitar kit.
--
Champ
chippy
> > Direct "for sale" is fine. Spamming your eBay auctions isn't.
>
>
> Wot's the difference then?
The difference is in the who part.
--
wigwambam
Andy Bonwick
Is it? I don't think you've got that one right. My take on it is
posting one link isn't an issue but more than one slightly alters it.
The original spammer (not Vass) posted a number of links to his goods
for sale and was hammered for it so I decided to ask Vass what his
views on that one were after he'd posted two.
Is this where we get a rash of "it's different for clique members"
bullshit?
Ben
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:18:19 -0000, Lozzo said ...
What's the difference? Both are effectively a private sale.
--
http://www.addict-racing.com
chippy
> >> > Direct "for sale" is fine. Spamming your eBay auctions isn't.
> >>
> >>
> >> Wot's the difference then?
> >
> > The difference is in the who part.
>
> Is it? I don't think you've got that one right. My take on it is
> posting one link isn't an issue but more than one slightly alters it.
> The original spammer (not Vass) posted a number of links to his goods
> for sale and was hammered for it so I decided to ask Vass what his
> views on that one were after he'd posted two.
I think certain people are far more tolerant of established posters
than occasional posters.
Certainly when it comes to selling gear, and snipping. The same
whingers are often the worst culprits.
Possibly the same people who post OT constantly.
> Is this where we get a rash of "it's different for clique members"
> bullshit?
Nah, the structure of the newsgroup is too complicated to simplify it
with the title of clique.
--
wigwambam
Paul Corfield
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:23:57 +0000, Andy Bonwick said ...
>> It didn't help though because I'm coughing my lungs out of my gob
>> every few minutes so someone has to take the stick.
>
>Ah, you've got that too eh?
I certainly have although thankfully I don't smoke any more so there is
much less to cough up.
--
Paul C - "the big camp bastard" (tm d.a.r.s.y)
VFR800 | ZX6R | R1150GS
BOD#5, two#4, BOTAFOT#23, BOTAFOF#4, URMSBC#09, COFF#09
Admits to working for London Underground!
Bear
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:25:04 -0000, Bear <bastard...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:23:57 +0000, Andy Bonwick said ...
>
> >> It didn't help though because I'm coughing my lungs out of my gob
> >> every few minutes so someone has to take the stick.
> >
> >Ah, you've got that too eh?
>
> I certainly have although thankfully I don't smoke any more so there is
> much less to cough up.
It's amazing just how many have gone down with it of late. It's what my
fever/flu-thing has turned into over the last few days. I don't mind
coughing stuff up, it's when you stop coughing stuff up that things get
painful.
Andy Bonwick
>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:25:04 -0000, Bear <bastard...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:23:57 +0000, Andy Bonwick said ...
>
>>> It didn't help though because I'm coughing my lungs out of my gob
>>> every few minutes so someone has to take the stick.
>>
>>Ah, you've got that too eh?
>
>I certainly have although thankfully I don't smoke any more so there is
>much less to cough up.
Mine started as a runny nose for two days and now it's a nice cough
along with a bit of a headache. I'll see how I feel in the morning
before I decide if I'm going to have a day or two off work. I've
finished my nasty job for the people I can't mention because they
don't like me taking the piss so I don't really have to go in.
Lozzo
Anyone else want to recount their amazing tales of coughing up great
globs of phlegm before I go for my dinner?
Bear
Sure, no worries, my pleasure. I woke up a couple of nights ago feeling
like I was drowning, so great was the volume of liquid on my lungs. I
got up, staggered into the en-suite and hocked up about a quarter of a
pint of bright green (tinged with a little blood) goo. Amazing.
I'm a bit puzzled as to why you wanted those stories just before dinner
(possibly some new diet thing?), but as a mate, I'm always happy to help
whenever I can. Enjoy, dude.
JackH
"Bear" <bastard...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5971289...@news.individual.de...
Vass isn't 'spamming' anything, you know - he's selling his *own* property,
as a *private* individual - nothing commercial about it.
Clearer for you now?
--
JackH
JackH
"Lozzo" <lo...@speedyspic.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e5970256...@news.individual.net...
> JackH said...
>
> > Unless I'm missing something very profound, it would appear all Vass is
> > doing is attempting to shift on his bike and a few bits of bike related
tat
> > he has kicking about, on ebay... which funnily enough, someone in here
might
> > just be tempted to buy, what with this being a bike group an' all.
> I agree. No-one's taken me to task for sticking a "for sale" post up for
> my GPZ500. I don't see any difference between that and putting an eBay
> url concerning a motorcycle in a post here.
*ding*
--
JackH
JackH
"Adrienne M Bonwick" <sp...@bonwick.me.uk> wrote in message
news:2vh0v11jvgvn4k73e...@4ax.com...
> >"Bear" <bastard...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> Direct "for sale" is fine. Spamming your eBay auctions isn't.
> >Vass isn't 'spamming' anything, you know - he's selling his *own*
property,
> >as a *private* individual - nothing commercial about it.
> this is where I object.
> if he was selling it wouldn't mind. he's auctioning it.
That, coming from you in particular... is bloody laughable and quite
possibly the most hypocritical post I've seen around these parts, in a long
time.
I suggest you look back a few weeks to your own sig. which featured in each
and every post you were making to the group at that point, before passing
any further comment along those lines.
That... and the point where you effectively hijacked anothers for sale
thread with a link to your own 'spam' as well.
HTH
--
JackH
Bear
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:11:57 -0000, "JackH"
> <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I suggest you look back a few weeks to your own sig. which featured in each
> >and every post you were making to the group at that point, before passing
> >any further comment along those lines.
>
> around here.
>
> If you google you'll find that I offered the bike for sale here weeks
> before it went onto ebay. It then didn't reach a price I was happy to
> accept.
>
> The only time that I've mentioned it was when someone else had said
> they wanted one and rather than rehash the points I pointed them in
> the direction of the very defunct auction and then took it offline.
>
> its probably still in the sig, is a pointer at ebay any worse than a
> link to a web page with exactly the same details? when it disappears
> off ebay I'll either bung it on a web page or likely keep it and sell
> the other three which is my preferred option.
>
> It is still for sale, its not up for auction.
>
> My CG is up for sale too.
You know every so often a post seems to carry an unwritten "you thick
twat" at the end of it?
JackH
> You know every so often a post seems to carry an unwritten "you thick
> twat" at the end of it?
Well given the posts directed by others at your misguided stance earlier in
this thread, that's something you're patently more familiar than the rest of
us... or rather would be if you didn't have your head wedged firmly up the
crack of your own opinionated anus... again.
--
JackH
JackH
each
> >and every post you were making to the group at that point, before passing
> >any further comment along those lines.
>
> around here.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if one reads back through this thread, you have
an apparent problem with the 'spam' that Vass has volunteered with the
group... and as per my last post, if it is that, then you're more guilty of
that, than he is.
> If you google you'll find that I offered the bike for sale here weeks
> before it went onto ebay. It then didn't reach a price I was happy to
> accept.
I think if you bother to check back, Vass too had the words 'for sale', and
a price next to the R1 in his sig., as well, for a while before he decided
to stick it on ebay.
Regardless, there's nothing sinister or out of order about someone deciding
to mention their bike or whatever is on ebay to the group, not least when
the items in question for sale are bike related and therefore more on topic
than most things around here.
There's also no obligation or rule, written or otherwise, that says they
have to offer it for sale in here first, either.
The fact you reckon that's how it should be is neither here nor there...
it's doing no harm other than making you look just a tad hypocritical when
you come up with the stance you have, given what has gone before.
> The only time that I've mentioned it was when someone else had said
> they wanted one and rather than rehash the points I pointed them in
> the direction of the very defunct auction and then took it offline.
...in the middle of a for sale ad for someone elses bike - dunno about
around here but in most of the other forums etc. I've been known to frequent
on the net, it's normally frowned upon and known as 'hijacking'.
--
JackH
CT
>
> According to the charter for sale ads of motorcycling stuff is
> allowed. I objected because Vass's wasn't for sale it was for auction.
The problem being that the charter was well written before eBay
existed (at least the UK site) and certainly before it became
common-place for people here to sell[1] bikes & bike related
stuff, wasn't it?
If eBay had been around when the charter was written I'm sure
auctions would have been covered.
There being no rules re.auctions then IMO "auction" posts should
be allowed as long as they are marked "FA" much like "OT" is
allowed and takes up far more of ukrm's bandwidth than anything
else.
[1] OK, "auction"
--
Chris
Nicknoxx
>
> I objected to the fact that new threads of auctions are out of order.
>
> According to the charter for sale ads of motorcycling stuff is
> allowed. I objected because Vass's wasn't for sale it was for auction.
>
This seems to me to be a particularly pedantic distinction.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=auction gives "A public sale in
which property or items of merchandise are sold to the highest bidder."
So an item up for auction IS for sale.
--
Nick Brooks
SV650
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
snip>
>There being no rules re.auctions then IMO "auction" posts should
>be allowed as long as they are marked "FA" much like "OT" is
>allowed and takes up far more of ukrm's bandwidth than anything
>else.
>
The trouble with rules is that they leave no room for a bit of common
sense. I can't think of one person being pilloried for making a single
post about an auction where the item has been bike related.
The cunt a few weeks back deserved all the abuse he got because he
kept on posting links to his items for auction. Vass was asked for his
opinion on this after his second post in as many days, not his first
one. Can you spot the difference and how would you allow for it in the
charter?
I can't see a problem in anything bike related being advertised in
someones sig. Loz has put his Kwak up for sale and I notice he's now
got a reminder for everyone in his sig. If he decided to post a
reminder (as a new post) every couple of days he'd rightly be called a
cunt.
Everyone has their own opinions on most subjects and that's what makes
this place worth visiting.
CT
> On 14 Feb 2006 01:24:41 -0800, "CT" <ch...@sitelinecomputing.co.uk>
> wrote:
> snip>
>
> >There being no rules re.auctions then IMO "auction" posts should
> >be allowed as long as they are marked "FA" much like "OT" is
> >allowed and takes up far more of ukrm's bandwidth than anything
> >else.
> >
> The trouble with rules is that they leave no room for a bit of common
> sense. I can't think of one person being pilloried for making a single
> post about an auction where the item has been bike related.
We're probably both trying to apply common sense - it's where
we are drawing the line that differs.
Anyway, I thought this sub-thread was the "for sale" vs."for
auction" argument. :o)
I don't buy/sell bikes and/or bike related stuff although many on
here do. Obviously, sticking up a single "FA" post containing
links to all the items would be best but that's not always
what the seller can do depending on when they decide to put
another item up for sale or auction.
> The cunt a few weeks back deserved all the abuse he got because he
> kept on posting links to his items for auction. Vass was asked for his
> opinion on this after his second post in as many days, not his first
> one. Can you spot the difference and how would you allow for it in the
> charter?
TBH, the way I read your post asking Vass' opinion was that
there was plenty there "between the lines", but that could have
been just me.
> I can't see a problem in anything bike related being advertised in
> someones sig. Loz has put his Kwak up for sale and I notice he's now
> got a reminder for everyone in his sig. If he decided to post a
> reminder (as a new post) every couple of days he'd rightly be called a
> cunt.
Can't we just call him a cunt anyway?
> Everyone has their own opinions on most subjects and that's what makes
> this place worth visiting.
I couldn't agree more.
--
Chris
'Hog
I think I made the point before that if someone has a bike for sale,
thinking of eBay, thinking of linking the auction on UKRM, put it up
here first for a couple of days.
About eBay auctions for bikes. It *really* fucks me off when sellers are
*so* fucking dumb they start at Ł0 for a Xthousand pound item. I hate
hidden reserves. If you want 5K, start the auction at 4K no reserve and
take what you get.
--
'Hog
'96 Bastard B12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
Lozzo
> Andy Bonwick wrote:
> > I can't see a problem in anything bike related being advertised in
> > someones sig. Loz has put his Kwak up for sale and I notice he's now
> > got a reminder for everyone in his sig. If he decided to post a
> > reminder (as a new post) every couple of days he'd rightly be called a
> > cunt.
>
> Can't we just call him a cunt anyway?
I don't see why not, everyone else does.
JackH
"'Hog" <hogSPAM&@freenetCHIPS.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45e27mF...@individual.net...
> About eBay auctions for bikes. It *really* fucks me off when sellers are
> *so* fucking dumb they start at £0 for a Xthousand pound item.
They're doing exactly what eBay recommends... and encourages by way of much
higher listing fees if you have a high start price etc.
> I hate hidden reserves.
So do I.
> If you want 5K, start the auction at 4K no reserve and
> take what you get.
And if you get nothing, you've spent that much more in listing fees, and
managed to extinguish any interest in the bike.
Maybe you should stick to Biketrader, eh, as eBay is obviously not for
you... ;-)
--
JackH
JackH
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:20:48 -0000, "JackH"
> <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if one reads back through this thread, you
have
> >an apparent problem with the 'spam' that Vass has volunteered with the
> >group... and as per my last post, if it is that, then you're more guilty
of
> >that, than he is.
>
In your opinion.
And I'd agree... if it was a commercial operation constantly bombarding the
group with links to their tat on ebay... which Vass seemingly isn't.
> According to the charter for sale ads of motorcycling stuff is
> allowed. I objected because Vass's wasn't for sale it was for auction.
Oh come on... 'the charter' - if everyone stuck to that, there would be
about 20 posts a week in here; everyone breaks it in one way or another.
Maybe it needs to be revised taking into account that the group has evolved
since that was written.
> >I think if you bother to check back, Vass too had the words 'for sale',
and
> >a price next to the R1 in his sig., as well, for a while before he
decided
> >to stick it on ebay.
> and this I have no problem with, as it appears does no-one else.
So he's then done exactly as you did - for sale in here first, and then
subsequently stuck his bike on ebay and posted up a link to it in here...
> >There's also no obligation or rule, written or otherwise, that says they
> >have to offer it for sale in here first, either.
> never said they did.
You implied earlier in the thread that should be the case...
> I said I had offered mine and when it went onto
> ebay I added to my sig. I didn't start a thread advertising it.
You've still effectively spammed the group though - Vass puts the link up in
a dedicated post the once, that anyone can choose to not read, and you've
had your link up each and every time you've posted, at one point.
I'm not having a pop, much as it probably seems I am... just telling it how
it is.
> >The fact you reckon that's how it should be is neither here nor there...
> >it's doing no harm other than making you look just a tad hypocritical
when
> >you come up with the stance you have, given what has gone before.
>
> I'm a woman, I'm allowed to be hypocritical :o)
Heh.
> but in this case I don't think I am being.
> >...in the middle of a for sale ad for someone elses bike - dunno about
> >around here but in most of the other forums etc. I've been known to
frequent
> >on the net, it's normally frowned upon and known as 'hijacking'.
> IIRC someone suggested a B12 to BGN rather than the B6 that had been
> advertised. If Nick had been bothered about a B6 he'd have said so. he
> also said he couldn't afford it. I just mentioned I had a far cheaper
> B12 for sale. Nick & I then took it offline, hardly a thread hijack.
Hmm... technically it was, you know.
I suggest that maybe if it had been a regs bike up for sale, and an outsider
as it were, jumping in, the reaction / comments would be a tad more
'abrasive'.
> where would UKRM be without threads taking a turn or three?
Sticking to its charter. ;-)
HTH
--
JackH
Pip
<jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>"Adrienne M Bonwick" <sp...@bonwick.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:k173v1lml1nc4d8hj...@4ax.com...
>> According to the charter for sale ads of motorcycling stuff is
>> allowed. I objected because Vass's wasn't for sale it was for auction.
>
>Oh come on... 'the charter' - if everyone stuck to that, there would be
>about 20 posts a week in here; everyone breaks it in one way or another.
Do they? How so?
>> I said I had offered mine and when it went onto
>> ebay I added to my sig. I didn't start a thread advertising it.
>
>You've still effectively spammed the group though - Vass puts the link up in
>a dedicated post the once, that anyone can choose to not read, and you've
>had your link up each and every time you've posted, at one point.
Spammed? Nope - the link in the .sig is the FAQ-recommended way to do
it.
>
>I'm not having a pop, much as it probably seems I am... just telling it how
>it is.
You're having a pop. This has ruffled your feathers, hasn't it?
>> where would UKRM be without threads taking a turn or three?
>
>Sticking to its charter. ;-)
Where does the Charter dictate that threads may not deviate from the
original subject - reading even a little way into the FAQ will show
that this is not only expected, it is damn-near compulsory.
--
Pip: B12
JackH
"Pip" <NOSPAMgi...@OMITTHISgmail.com> wrote in message
news:kr15v1thc0v99th1r...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:05:09 -0000, "JackH"
> <jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Adrienne M Bonwick" <sp...@bonwick.me.uk> wrote in message
> >news:k173v1lml1nc4d8hj...@4ax.com...
>
> >> According to the charter for sale ads of motorcycling stuff is
> >> allowed. I objected because Vass's wasn't for sale it was for auction.
> >
> >Oh come on... 'the charter' - if everyone stuck to that, there would be
> >about 20 posts a week in here; everyone breaks it in one way or another.
> Do they? How so?
"An area for the discussion of anything concerning two wheeled and
sidecar/trike transport within the UK. Also a board for the placing of
requests and advertisements concerning motorcycle related issues and
occasions relevant to Internet users in the United Kingdom."
That... is the definition of UKRM in the charter.
Therefore anything 'off topic', is a breach of that... that is if we're
playing 'pedants r us' to the letter like some appear to want to do so in
here when it suits their own point of view, even if they're as guilty of the
same breach as the person they're lambasting...
> >> I said I had offered mine and when it went onto
> >> ebay I added to my sig. I didn't start a thread advertising it.
> >You've still effectively spammed the group though - Vass puts the link up
in
> >a dedicated post the once, that anyone can choose to not read, and you've
> >had your link up each and every time you've posted, at one point.
>
> Spammed? Nope - the link in the .sig is the FAQ-recommended way to do
> it.
I've just had a brief scan of the FAQ, and could find these:
"Commercial advertising is forbidden
Adverts are allowed but only from individuals selling privately."
and...
"1.15: Bike for sale?
How to advertise your bike on ukrm
First off, let's make it quite clear yet again that whilst private
advertising is fine, any dealers found placing commercial ads in ukrm will
find themselves in deep shit with the regulars.
a.. Put "FOR SALE" or "FS" in the subject line
b.. Where you are (or at least where the bike is). State the town or
county. Just saying "south east" isn't much help
c.. What make, model and year of manufacture
d.. State if it's an import
e.. Mileage
f.. Any modifications / accessories
g.. Tax/MOT
h.. Colour
i.. Garaged or not (optional)
j.. No of owners (optional)
k.. Asking price (Warning - if you're being too much of an optimist,
TOG'll be down on you like a ton of bricks)
l.. e-mail address (we don't recommend you give out your phone number on
the newsgroup) "
To summarise in specific case of bikes, if the FAQ is the benchmark, then
*anything* other than the above is a breach of it.
Therefore in this specific scenario, Adie is as guilty as Vass in terms of a
breach, because they've both put links to bikes on ebay on the group.
There's nothing obvious in the FAQ about links being in sig., not least in
the bit where, if you expect people to take it in, in relation to
advertising, where it should be.
Another point: the FAQ specifically deals with the advertising of bikes in
terms of what is and isn't expected in an ad - not other bike related gear,
or in fact anything else that someone might want to advertise in here, be it
on ebay or otherwise...
So with this in mind, maybe, (as pointed out elsewhere by the man himself),
Champ should be hung, drawn and quartered for advertising the links to the
guitar gear he recently put on ebay, in here... or is that more acceptable
than Vass putting links to bike related gear in here?
> or (even better) on a web page and post the URL to ukrm.
Yes, you could do that... optionally, and yes, it would perhaps make more
sense at times... but it's not a stated FAQ or charter requirement, when
advertising in here.
The charter states:
"Advertising:
Will be permitted, but limited to adverts notifying subscribers of future
attractions and events. Commercial advertising i.e. adverts from motorcycles
retailers etc. will not be allowed."
If one discounts the FAQ completely, then even ads for bikes are not
permitted.
See... as I understand it, the charter is set in stone and is effectively
the 'UKRM Constitution', whereas the FAQ is merely a set of recommendations
cooked up over the years by a few of the regs - therefore if the charter is
to be quoted as something that has been breached, does this then null the
FAQ... or should we all perhaps 'get over it', and live and let live unless
someone *really* takes the piss... which incidentally Vass hasn't, on this
occasion.
> >I'm not having a pop, much as it probably seems I am... just telling it
how
> >it is.
>
> You're having a pop.
Nope.
I'm merely pointing out yet another example of this group at its
hypocritically pedantic finest.
> This has ruffled your feathers, hasn't it?
Nope.
I'm merely pointing out how fucking pedantic people are in here when it
suits them, even when they're as guilty of 'breaking the rules' themselves.
> >> where would UKRM be without threads taking a turn or three?
> >Sticking to its charter. ;-)
> Where does the Charter dictate that threads may not deviate from the
> original subject - reading even a little way into the FAQ will show
> that this is not only expected, it is damn-near compulsory.
I'm surprised at you - you appear to be confusing the Charter, for the FAQ:
The link to the charter stated in the FAQ is:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.motorcycles.html, and once again I'll quote
its definition of UKRM:
"An area for the discussion of anything concerning two wheeled and
sidecar/trike transport within the UK. Also a board for the placing of
requests and advertisements concerning motorcycle related issues and
occasions relevant to Internet users in the United Kingdom.", is what it
defines UKRM as.
The amount of off topic threads in here - most are guilty of starting those
in here, not least me or you from time to time.
However... if we adopt your reasoning above, as in, 'well it doesn't say you
can't do that, therefore you can', neither FAQ or charter state you can't
have links to items on ebay in here.
So... make your mind up - either the charter is a valid 'rule of thumb' by
which we should all live by, (that is if we want to fall back on it and
quote it in times of hypocritical pedantry), even though it is contradicted
by the FAQ, or it isn't.
The FAQ either needs to stay as it is within reason and only used against
the real pisstakers, such as commercial fuckwits spamming the group with
their poxy websites / business interests, or it needs to be far more concise
as in what is and isn't acceptable and more clearly laid out, if people are
expected to adhere to it in its entirety.
Or... 'we' could stop being so fucking petty and let the group continue as
it has up until now, because I dunno about you, but I'd rather the latter
happened given the group hasn't exactly been flooded with adverts of one
form or another, be that commercial or private.
HTH
--
JackH
Andy Bonwick
<jackha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
snip>
>I've just had a brief scan of the FAQ, and could find these:
>
snippety snip>
>Therefore in this specific scenario, Adie is as guilty as Vass in terms of a
>breach, because they've both put links to bikes on ebay on the group.
>
Where Adie scores is that she can change the FAQ whenever she likes to
read whatever she likes as long as she stays somewhere on the right
side of total insanity.